Justice Department Official Gives $500,000 Anti-Crime Grant To Well-Connected Group For Golf Lessons »
Iraq Status-Of-Forces Agreement: Why It’s A Really Bad Deal No Matter How You Look At It
Having royally screwed up just about everything else over the past seven-plus years, George Bush’s last best hope of tying the hands of the next administration before heading back to Texas to search for his legacy among the scrub brush is a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq.
The problem for Bush is that hardly anyone likes the agreement except he and Nouri al-Maliki. This is because it is a really bad deal for everyone except the nanny president and his diapered prime minister protege. Oh, and American oil companies, too.
Under the agreement, formally known as a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America,” Iraq would:
* Grant the U.S. long-term rights to maintain as many military bases as it wants — 58 according to some accounts, compared to the present 30 — and where it wants them.
* Allow the U.S. to conduct military strikes against Iran and any other country without the permission of the Iraqi government.
* Allow the U.S. to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.
* Allow U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi for any reason without consulting local authorities.
* Grant immunity from Iraqi law to U.S. troops and contractors.
* Place the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under U.S. supervision for 10 years.
* Give the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for 10 years.
And although the word oil does not appear anywhere in the agreement, there is an open secret of a quid pro quo: U.S. oil companies get first dibs at Iraq’s vast untapped oil wealth and Al-Maliki gets coup insurance.
Pretty amazing, eh?
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
9 Responses to “Iraq Status-Of-Forces Agreement: Why It’s A Really Bad Deal No Matter How You Look At It”
[...] at the details of the agreement that Bush Administration is proposing, you have to ask yourself why the Iraqis would be dumb enough to agree to it: Under the agreement, formally known as a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship [...]
For the sake of comparison:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/usa/sfa/pdfs/f…
and
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b510619a.htm
The first one is Japan's SOFA, the second is Nato's. The bases, immunity (not so much immunity, but rather the ability to try people in american court, under the foreign law), and the contractual monopoly are part of japan's. The immunity and bases, with some contractual elements, in Nato's.
The Iraqi don;t have to sign it, in fact, I think they would be putting on quite the display of independence if they don't. Both sides have a good chunk of leverage, so I'm pretty sure we'll get a SOFA, and probably one of the things on that list (outside of the stuff in japan's sofa), most likely the part about determining for ourselves what a threat is.
This is Bush's “I drink your milkshake” document.
Who still wants to argue we aren't an empire and this isn't an occupation?
Iraqis Unhappy with US Demand for Indefinite Presence; Meanwhile, Bringing Troops Home ‘Not too important’ to McCain
by Damozel | One of my colleagues has been saying for some time that none of the candidates will actually bring the troops home because, as a practical matter, the US can’t afford to bring the troops home. Thanks to Bush and Halliburton, we’ve spille…
This just in. Iraq has asked that they be allowed to arrest anyone in America without our permission and for exemption from prosecution for any Iraqi national or contractor. Why the hell not? Let's sign it!
Well, we know what you'll see no matter what the reality is there, Shaun.
Another good photo selection, I noticed, though.
This _is_ an occupation, Chris, but the USA has _never_ been an empire, even if it was imperialistic in a previous century.
What is interesting to bear in mind with this list of demands by the Bush administration is the rare blot on Israel's record regarding its haggling in the past with the Arabs over sovereignty in the Territories. I have seen insistences by at least some Israelis in the past that any new Palestinian “nation” not have any military forces or make mutual defense pacts with any other nation. That is hardly sovereignty or anything like a “nation.” (Consider how distorted that concept can be elsewhere, such as when some of the … unrealistic … expectations or merely desires by some Quebec separatists come to light [retaining Canadian currency and citizenship, etc., "divorce with bedroom privileges"]. Sovereignty means true separation and independence.)
[...] It’s not like Iraqis don’t want U.S. troops in their country for the next 100 years. It’s not like the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are vehemently opposed to the terms and conditions under which the United States proposes to stay in…. [...]